It’s been 15 years since the Raiders and Rams last played in Los Angeles. For years, Majestic Realty was trying to renovate the Coliseum to bring back a team there, only to be denied, until now. Of course there are some technicalities for discussion. Like this possible team, is not actually going to be in downtown L.A., it’s actually going to be 20 miles or so east. This has caused lots of debate as to whether it’s a good place for a stadium in general, and how this stadium could affect the neighboring cities.

For more on No On NFL Stadium, click on this link.
For more on the proposed plan, click on this link
For info on Majestic Realty, click here
To see where NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stands on the whole issue, click here

Quote, Unquote – the two differing sides of how traffic will be affected

LA Stadium says:
In November of 2004 an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Certified for a project that includes industrial warehouse, retail and office buildings. The total number of traffic trips allowed for that project is 67,993 each day Monday through Friday. The Stadium Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) allows 53,772 Monday through Friday, 14,221 less every weekday or 71,105 less every week. On the only TWO days each year that a game can be played on a weeknight the traffic trips would be 62,837, 5,156 less than the approved number in the 2004 EIR. In other words even during a Monday Night Football game the traffic would be less than the already approved project.

The Stadium could only have events 45 days each year and only 30 of those could be sellouts and the remaining 15 only 25,000 attendees. Of the 30 sellouts only 2 could be on a weekday evening so the traffic generated by the Stadium would be predominantly on the weekends when peak traffic is much less congested.

The project will be required to create a parking management plan that will help prevent congestion around the Stadium on game days and there are significant traffic mitigation requirements for the project contained in the SEIR.

Rebuttal by Leo Lee, a traffic specialist from Walnut

As a Traffic Engineer by profession of 30 years, I cannot agree with its content. I have reviewed the Traffic Impact section of the SEIR, and I found that it is flawed in its basic assumptions. Firstly, it is a supplemental EIR to the IBC development. A stadium is a major landuse change that would require an EIR of its own. Secondly, the study only attempts to address the traffic impacts of the proposed stadium and associated facilities, it doesn’t address the impacts of ‘secondary developments’ – hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. that would spring up in the surrounding neighborhoods spurred by the stadium. Thirdly, even the technical analysis was flawed, leading to a gross understimation of the amount of traffic that may be generated (like only 1900 cars on Grand). Fourthly, it doesn’t address how the traffic mitigation requirements will be built. The study recommended widening Grand Ave at a number of intersections, but the City of Industry will only be responsible for a ‘fair share’ of 10% to 40% typically, depending on the location. But without the stadium, these widenings would not be required, so the fair share analysis is not applicable here. Fair share allocation is usually used in smaller developments whereby the impacts are so small that it won’t warrant any immediate improvements, and yet the improvements may be needed in future when the cumulative impacts of the future developments make the mitigation measures necessary, so a ‘fair share’ cost is applied to this current developer such that the City gets a coffer of money for future mitigation use. A Stadium by itself is a major developments, so that any negative impacts shall be 100% paid for by it.